One of the points made by TTAG commenters was that the Iowa situation makes them look bad, that gun control folks and fence-sitters will be inclined to mover further away from gun rights as a result of this.
I agree.
This has got to be one of the best examples we've seen yet of the fanaticism and close-mindedness of the gun-rights movement.
Unlike the "Armed Intellegentsia," as the commenters on The Truth About Guns are called, our own site is a bit more polarized. Our pro-gun commenters are more uniformly extremist. I don't think a one of them agreed that blind folks are unfit to own and operate guns.
Why is that? Well, I suspect some of our guys are blindly contentious and tend to oppose anything that is suggested here. If I said the sky is blue, they'd immediately insist that on a cloudy day there's no evidence to support my observation. It's kinda funny really, but it does become a drag after a while and it certainly draws into question their overall honesty.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
It's not a problem with our honesty. It's your failure to respect rights. You seem to think that people have to ask permission to do something, whereas we believe that the government must have a compelling reason to tell us not to do that thing. The government has no compelling reason to tell anyone not to own a gun, unless that person has done something illegal.
ReplyDeleteThen why are blind people not allowed to get a driver's license? Is the government being oppressive in disallowing that?
Delete1. Driving isn't mentioned as an enumerated right in the Constitution.
Delete2. You oppose letting blind people own guns. I have no problem with a blind person owning a car.
3. Do you remember how I've said no compromises? Until you're willing to declare owning and carrying a firearm as a fundamental right, I'll fight everything you want. Giving up ground to you is ground lost.
If the blind cant pass a driving test, they don't get a license to drive. (I thought you don't like car comparisons) The government is not being oppressive if you cant pass a driving test.
DeleteIf the blind can pass a safety course requirements then they should get their permit to carry.
Your comparison cant hold water much less a bucket of sand.
They are allowed to own a car. You won't allow someone who has done nothing wrong to even own legal property- based on a handicap.
DeleteGreg, you're right. I don't recognize the owning of a gun by a private citizen in the 21st century as a "right." That's not what the 2A says.
DeleteTexas, I believe an eye test should be required for gun ownership, too. Forgive the car comparison.
Then why do you expect us to accept any of your demands? As I said, any ground given to you is lost. We'll have to fight to get it back. It's better not to surrender anything to you in the first place.
DeleteIn a way there already is an eye test for getting a permit Mike, its called shooting the target. Totally blind can get a test designed for them. Legally blind can also drive cars depending on the level of vision they have and also pass a vision test. These legally blind can also pass a shooting test.
DeleteAnd the second civil right never had an expiration date, has not been amended since its signing and it is still a right because that IS what it says. Since all the states and the Supreme Court also said that this right exists, still today, I would say your wrong about your opinion of what the second civil right says.
Then there is this Mike, yesterday from Illinois.
Deletehttp://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/11/us-usa-guns-chicago-idUSBRE98A15220130911
Of course TTAG has a published reading of the Illinois court decision about the second civil rights.
Deletehttp://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/09/robert-farago/illinois-supreme-court-right-keep-bear-arms-extends-outside-home/
Not to promote TTAG here Mike, you already reference them in some of your posts, but its the post subject I refer to.
The point is that the courts are further affirming what the second civil rights mean to the people of this country and what the government cant do to the people here.
I cant believe that the some of the bill of rights have been so twisted, so misinterpreted over the decades that it is taking courts to put back into place its original meaning which is in plain, simple to read and understand English.
The second CIVIL RIGHT is about the people FIRST, all other reasons second. It has not changed, expired, dated, amended or otherwise ever had its meaning diluted in any way, ever. Laws that have passed that restrict the second CIVIL RIGHT are essentially unconstitutional and therefore illegal. The reason some of these laws have stood is because the people have tolerated it. That tolerance is wearing thin across the country.
I even expect that we will see the abolishment of the NFA act eventually as well.
Well, the actual history tells a different story. Not until 2008, after several decades of lobbying and corruption, did the 2A legally have an individual application. And that happened by one vote on one of the most corrupt Supreme Courts we've ever had, e.g. Clarence Thomas.
DeleteThere was never a clear case on the individual application issue until Heller, but an evaluation of the precedent and of legal writings from the founding era on indicate or assume that the right belongs to individuals.
DeleteBut go ahead and keep misrepresenting the judicial history.
There is something particularly useful about this. You gun control types are obsessed with it. Perhaps you'll be too occupied with this subject to pay attention to gains we make elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteI just read one example of what I'm talking about. Did you see the recall results from Colorado? Both gun control senators were tossed out of office.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry, we're watching all your so-called victories. But, this post is about the "victory" in Iowa. Please be clear, you are in favor of blind people owning and using firearms and obtaining concealed carry permits, is that right?
DeleteAnswered above. But I'm curious about your reaction to Colorado, since you or Jade posted an article on that a while ago.
DeleteSo many of you have been straight up offensive to handicapped people. Many of them have overcome great obstacles, and have persevered and adapted to their handicap. Then you guys come along and say they're too stupid to even own a gun. Because they can't see, they are going to act reckless. That's highly insensitive to people who have lived their live with an extra level of care that we all have taken for granted. I bet fewer blind pedestrians at hit by cars than people with sight. I haven't seen that statistic, but it's a hunch.
ReplyDeleteTS has the right of it. Let's make a deal, we'll take you seriously and you stop posting degrading cartoons portraying blind people as pathetic buffoons. (Mr. Magoo? really?)
DeleteLearn something about blindness before you make judgements. Start with Carey McWilliams, whom you obviously have not looked up, would you allow him to have guns?
C'mon TS. You usually argue more straight up than that? This is Greg's style.
Delete"Then you guys come along and say they're too stupid to even own a gun."
Ah, insulting him for arguing effectively against bigoted statements you've made. Nice.
DeleteAll the cartoons, all the jokes, all the arguments against this is that they will do something stupid and reckless because they are blind. They've lived their whole lives with an extra layer of caution that you and I could only imagine. If anything, you should trust them more.
DeleteTS, you accused us of SAYING that they're too stupid. You didn't refer to the silly cartoons, you said we SAID it.
DeleteAre you incapable of admitting you're wrong, like Greg and Tennessean? I really thought you were a cut above.
Ah, and now I'm "incapable" of admitting I'm wrong even though I've freely done so on the rare occasions when you've brought real evidence and proved me wrong.
DeletePitiful tactic, Mike. Slander me repeatedly and constantly to try to discredit my statements. It says very little for the strength of your position.
You're all hung up on the word "said"? Really? Technically, I never said you said anything- I typed it.
DeleteThe implication that you guys are making (is that better?) is that the blind will act careless with their guns and not reliaze they have this limitation which they otherwise spend every waking minute of their lives adapting to overcome. But put a gun in their hand, and they'll turn into Yosemite Sam.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteA criminal attacker and especially a home invader may have no idea that their intended victim is blind. Thus a blind victim could use a firearm to frighten off the attacker when the attacker sees the firearm or hears the victim cycle the action.
If the sight our sound of the action of the firearm didn't send the attacker away, the blind victim could even use blanks in their firearm and report of the firearm to frighten off the attacker. Here is how that would work. During an attack a criminal would have no idea that the victim had blanks and would instead assume that the victim missed. All but the most deranged criminals will break off their attack when the victim starts shooting.
Even more compelling, a victim does not need to have vision to accurately aim and safely shoot a firearm at an attacker when the attacker is on top of the victim. Further, if the victim routinely had lots of friends or relatives around, the victim could once again use blanks ... in a revolver is this setting. Blanks are quite devastating when you press the barrel of the gun against the attacker and yet would have no chance whatsoever of seriously wounding an innocent bystander just 1 foot away.
I have just outlined three situations where a blind person could use firearms safely, responsibly, and effectively to defend themselves without any risk to bystanders. And yet you still want to deny blind people from having firearms. Why?
- TruthBeTold
Those are a lot of hypotheticals, man. The inescapable truth is a blind person can't adhere to the safety rule of being sure of your target and what's behind it. Case closed.
DeleteBut, by all means keep talking. You're sending the undecided fence sitters our way.
Mike,
DeleteI just explained how a blind person can be sure of a target when the attacker is on top of them! And if the blind person uses blanks, it doesn't matter what is behind the attacker because blanks cannot cause serious injury beyond 1 foot.
I also explained how a blind person could use an unloaded gun to drive-off an attacker. That presents absolutely no safety hazard whatsoever to bystanders.
There is no sane reason to tell a blind person they cannot have an unloaded firearm or a firearm loaded with blanks. You have clearly shown that you have an irrational disdain for firearms and people who want to possess them.
- TruthBeTold
What about the attacker on top of the blind person, as Truth be Told just said, and I also pointed out? They can be just as sure of what they are shooting at as anyone else.
DeleteAnd I like the blank idea. That's not a bad way to do it,
Because only Mike's hypotheticals matter!
DeleteI gave an example of a rape victim. Are you saying being raped is a wildly cooked up hypothetical, Mike?
DeleteTo follow Mikeb's methods, you have to call hypotheticals facts first.
DeleteBlind people cannot handle guns safely except in the very narrow situation Truth be Told invented. I guess we'll have to get the bad guys to cooperate, that's all.
DeleteSo Mike, are you now admitting that there are exception/s to your idea that the blind actually cant use guns in defense of themselves?
DeleteWhat's the best way to get a bad guy to cooperate?
Delete